Marina Litvinenko: we are trying to stop the Russian propaganda machine

Sep 13 2018

Free Russia Foundation and the Atlantic Council organized this week an event with Marina Litvinenko – the widow of slain former intelligence officer Alexander Litvinenko – and family friend Alexander Goldfarb, to discuss their defamation lawsuit against Russian TV channels in the U.S. The panel discussion, held on Tuesday, September 11, also considered Russia’s use of the disinformation to discredit accusations over the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal.

Alex Goldfarb filed the lawsuit against two Russian state television channels, RT and Channel 1, with a federal court in New York last Friday. Goldfarb said the broadcasters’ programs have falsely claimed that he himself was behind the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian intelligence officer murdered in London in 2006 after drinking from a poisoned cup of tea. The TV programs (short clips were showed at the event) show Walter Litvinenko, father of Alexander Litvinenko and previously a critic of Vladimir Putin, accusing Goldfarb on the basis of an account told by Goldfarb’s wife. The story goes on to accuse Goldfarb also of killing his wife for “knowing too much,” and of working with American and British security services to discredit Russia. Goldfarb, a US citizen, denies all of the claims.

“This is clearly a case of Russian effort to change public opinion both in Russia and in the West into a basic anti-American mode,” said Goldfarb. He added that the broadcasts should also be seen in the context of Russian government propaganda aiming to distance Russian authorities in the aftermath of the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury.

Marina Litvinenko, Alexander Litvinenko’s widow, said she decided to support the legal action because she could not stand by idly. “Almost 10 years we tried to get justice for my husband,” said Litvinenko, adding that the propaganda against her husband started after his death. In 2016, a UK government inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko concluded that the Russian state is likely to have been behind the poisoning, with intelligence officers Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun identified as the main suspects. In 2018, however, after the poisoning of Skripals, the Russian propaganda machine accelerated again, said Litvinenko.

“They try to use the case of Alexander Litvinenko to destroy the future case of Julia and Sergei Skripal,” said Litvinenko. In this regard, she said, the case brought to the U.S. court is “not only a personal case of Alexander Goldfarb,” but one against the “Russian propaganda-style machine,” and “we try to stop it.”

Bertrand C. Sellier, Goldfarb’s lawyer, said there are hundreds of thousands of Russian-speaking people living in the U.S. and that the Russian-language programs on TV have made Goldfarb “a victim of the most heinous lies imaginable.” He added, “this is a case about an individual American citizen who’s been defamed, but I think we can see in this case some real echoes of what is going on generally with Russian propaganda – the attempts to disrupt democracy not only in our country but all over the world.”

New political environment and a new case

Marina Litvinenko said she had hoped after the findings of the British public inquiry that such a crime would never happen again. “I couldn’t believe it happened again,” said Litvinenko.

Though the Skripal case is very similar, the UK government’s reaction has been different the second time around, as exhibited by outrage and the EU and US expulsion of Russian diplomats. In contrast, in the aftermath of Litvinenko’s poisoning, British government was reluctant to investigate the matter. Marina Litvinenko had to sue the British government to open a public inquiry and a court compelled the government to do so, said Goldfarb.

The British government has already brought charges against two Russian men it believes committed the Skripal attack. “There is, of course, an additional national security argument,” said Goldfarb, as novichok, the poison used in the attack, is a more dangerous substance than the polonium used in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

Marina Litvinenko said she doesn’t believe the suspects in either poisoning would ever be extradited by the Russian government and that the public inquiry into Skripal’s case could be a step in the right direction as it could help prevent such crimes in the future, as well as provide additional information.

After the Litvinenko inquiry in the UK was published, said Litvinenko, “I realized I have power.” She added that it was very difficult to change public opinion about the Kremlin because a lot of people still believed that Russia is a democratic country. After 2014, however, the situation has changed and people have seen the Kremlin’s actions and how propaganda actually works. “We see how they twist any information,” said Litvinenko. “People became confused on what is truth and what is not, because they believe it is just an alternative opinion and we see how dangerous it is. [But] it is not simply another opinion, it is propaganda,” said Litvinenko.

Bertrand C. Sellier said the accusations against Goldfarb have been rejected by the official findings of the UK public inquiry. The Russian-backed TV channels can claim they were just transmitting Walter Litvinenko’s personal opinion, and Sellier notes that “the Supreme Court said that if someone is a public figure you have not only say that something is false, but in effect to know that it is false. In this case the broadcasters were putting forth and endorsing the statement by Walter. […]The case was just filed a few days ago on Friday, so we haven’t heard yet from the defendants, but my guess is that they are going to defend the case vigorously […] We are prepared to fight it.”

By Valeria Jegisman

Free Russia Foundation announces new Board of Directors

WASHINGTON, DC, December 12, 2018. The Free Russia Foundation, a 501(c) 3 non-profit organization, striving to defend freedom and human rights in Russia and restore Russia’s path to democracy, announced it has formed a Board of Directors comprised of distinguished foreign policy leaders.

At its first meeting, Hon.David J. Kramer, former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and current Senior Fellow at the Vaclav Havel Program for Human Rights and Diplomacy at Florida International University’s Green School of International and Public Affairs, was elected Board Chairman, and Hon.Paige Alexander, Executive Director for European Cooperative for Rural Development, former USAID Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia and former USAID Assistant Administrator for the Middle East, was voted Vice Chair of the foundation.

Dr. Sergey Aleksashenko, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former Russian Deputy Minister of Finance and First Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Russia was named Board Treasurer and Ms. Melissa Hooper, the Director of the Human Rights and Civil Society program at Human Rights First will act as the Board Secretary.

Other Board Members include Dr.Alina Polyakova, David M. Rubenstein Fellow for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution; Dr. Daniel Treisman, professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research; Ms.Ellen Bork, a Visiting Fellow at the Project 2049 Institute; Ambassador Ian C. Kelly, Ambassador (ret.) in Residence at Northwestern University and former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and former U.S. Ambassador to Georgia; Dr. Lilia Shevtsova, Associate Fellow at the Russia and Eurasia Program at Chatham House and founding chair of the Davos World Economic Forum Council on Russia’s Future; Hon.Thomas O. Melia, Washington Director at PEN America, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and former USAID Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia; and Mr.Vladimir Kara-Murza, Vice Chairman of the Open Russia movement and Chairman of Boris Nemtsov Foundation for Freedom.

Ms. Natalia Arno, the founder of the Free Russia Foundation, will serve as President and Board Member (ex officio) and direct day-to-day operations from its headquarters in Washington, DC.

The Board will be responsible for guiding the Free Russia Foundation, founded in 2014, through its next stage of growth as it expands its programs in the U.S., Europe, and Russia and seeks to shape effective and sustainable Western policy toward Russia.

“We are thrilled to join Natalia to help her with the amazing work she does running Free Russia Foundation and advancing the cause of democracy in Russia,” Kramer said.

Free Russia Foundation joins global resistance to authoritarianism

The Forum brought together prominent social and human rights activists, politicians, musicians, tech companies and writers from different countries who discussed the state of freedom across the globe and the ways of resisting authoritarianism and gross violations of fundamental human rights.

The Forum was comprised of (1) the Interactive Expo, where participants could learn about the latest technologies, protest fashion and much more, (2) a series of discussion sessions and (3) working lunches on different topics, ranging from the power of decentralized technology to the interfaith efforts to rebuild Iraq after ISIS. Over 1,000 people registered for the Forum, and it was completely sold out.

Free Russia Foundation’s team has participated in the Forum to share the current state of human rights and freedoms in Russia with other participants and to network with fellow freedom advocates. According to the Human Rights Foundation, which organized the Forum, over 4 billion people in the world – more than a half of the world’s population – live under authoritarian regimes. The firsthand experience of living under those regimes, their struggle and resistance, was shared by activists from Turkey and North Korea, Venezuela and Vietnam, Togo and China, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. They were stories of broken lives, suffering, brutality, injustice and miserable living conditions which, nevertheless, did not break the people, but gave them strength to stand up and fight back. They were the stories of the bravery and resilience of thousands of people who, despite their unjust battle with mighty authoritarian regimes, did not bow their heads, but do not make the headlines.

As a North Korean defector, Yeon-mi Park, said in her speech: “Here I am today to talk about the people who were forgotten. The free people have to speak for them, because who else will speak for those who are not free?”

While focused primarily on the South American, African and Asian regions, the Forum could not ignore the latest development in Putin’s Russia. The President of Human Rights Foundation and the founder of Oslo Freedom Forum, Thor Halvorssen, in his opening speech, talked about the poisoning of a member of Russian activist group Pussy Riot and active anti-Kremlin critic Pyotr Verzilov.

The President of Human Rights Foundation and the founder of Oslo Freedom Forum, Thor Halvorssen, in his opening speech, talked about the poisoning of a member of Russian activist group Pussy Riot and active anti-Kremlin critic Pyotr Verzilov. At Oslo Freedom Forum in New York, 18 September 2018.

Thor Halvorssen also talked about the Pyotr Verzilov’s activism during the World Cup. At Oslo Freedom Forum in New York, 18 September 2018

A discussion between former U.S. diplomat Ian C. Kelly and prominent Russian dissident Garry Kasparov explored how the free world can stand up to Putin’s threat to world peace and security, as well as human rights in Russia itself. During the discussion, the former U.S. ambassador to the OSCE showed a video made by American diplomats at the OSCE headquarters in Vienna demanding the release of Oleg Sentsov from a Russian prison.

“How can the free word stand up to Putin and advocate for peace, security, and the protection of human rights in Russia?” Garry Kasparov in conversation with Ian C. Kelly at Oslo Freedom Forum in New York, 18 September 2018

One of 7 working lunches, called “Holding Tyrants Accountable through Tech,” focused on using innovative computer technologies to provide evidence of war crimes and human rights violations to governments, NGOs and the United Nations. Such technologies are currently used in Syria to predict airstrikes carried out from the Russian military air base Khmeimim. As one of the speakers, Serbian activist Srđa Popović, said at the end of the Forum: “Most important is knowing that you are not alone, which is one of the biggest values of things like the Oslo Freedom Forum. We are the family, the family of people who really care, and sticking to the family really helps.”

The Forum highlighted the work of activists and innovators, inspired actions through the exchange of ideas and connected participants with allies and supporters. By participating in the Forum, Free Russia Foundation has the privilege of joining the global resistance against authoritarianism.

By Dmitri Valuev

Conflict of Interest is not Disclosed as Kremlin’s Lobbyist Interviewed on NPR

Aug 10 2018

On July 12, 2018, NPR’s 1A Program covering NATO’s 2018 Summit in Brussels featured Frances G. Burwell identified as Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council (at 2:49 of the podcast).

On July 12, 2018, NPR’s 1A Program covering NATO’s 2018 Summit in Brussels featured Frances G. Burwell identified as Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council (at 2:49 of the podcast).

During her interview, Ms. Burwell discussed Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the German-Russian relations in a positive way, arguing against the U.S. taking a hard stance toward these issues.

Both, the show’s host Joshua Johnson and his guest failed to disclose Ms. Burwell’s affiliation as Senior Adviser at McLarty Associates, a law firm lobbying to advance the interests of the Kremlin-promoted Nord Stream 2 pipeline in Washington, D.C. Emails for clarification to Mr. Johnson at NPR by Free Russia Foundation have not received response, nor has the NPR issued any public acknowledgement of this serious flaw with the interviewee’s objectivity.

For the past two years, major U.S. media outlets have extensively covered McLarty’s lobbying efforts promoting Nord Stream 2 and scrutinizing the shady dealings of its key employee Richard Burt on behalf of the gas consortium and Kremlin-connected oligarchs.

This incident is not an isolated glitch, but a part of an aggressive, well-funded and well-coordinated influence campaign waged by the Kremlin against the U.S. influence and targeting U.S. decision-makers and its general public. Free Russia Foundation staff has ran into Frances Burwell at events dedicated to Nord Stream 2 at the Atlantic Council, where she accompanied vocal supporters of the project including Friedbert Pfluger who has recently been exposed by the U.K. press for his dubious lobbying activity disguised as a scholar.

Free Russia Foundation experts have written about the corruption surrounding the Nord Stream 1 and 2 projects. We have also covered McLarty Associates as one of the enablers of the project in the West (see page 15 of our report). In our view, it is imperative that major media outlets like NPR meticulously verify affiliations of their guests for possible conflicts of interest in the future in order to avoid offering a bully pulpit to the Kremlin and its Western enablers in the US.

On Thursday, June 14, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think-tank, organized a panel discussion with Russian opposition leaders to explore U.S.-Russia relations in Vladimir Putin’s fourth term as president.

On Thursday, June 14, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think-tank, organized a panel discussion with Russian opposition leaders to explore U.S.-Russia relations in Vladimir Putin’s fourth term as president. The panelists argued that Russian foreign policy is largely a reflection of domestic developments, that there is a distinction between the Kremlin regime and Russia itself, and that thoughtful engagement and cooperation is needed between Russia and the West.

The panel included:

Andrei Kozyrev, a Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (1990-1996)Natalia Arno, President, Free Russia FoundationVladimir Kara-Murza, Vice Chairman of Open Russia; Former Deputy Leader of the People’s Freedom PartyVitali Shkliarov, Russian Political Strategist; Former Senior Campaign Adviser to Ksenia Sobchak

Natalia Arno said that there are many voices in the West that call for forgetting past disputes and starting a dialogue with Russia to tackle global challenges, but it is important to remember “how Putin acts and why he started to act like he does.” “The phenomenon of disruption,” said Arno, “is the main choice for his foreign policy.” The West’s failure to take serious steps after the war in Georgia in 2008, she said, contributed to the expansion of disruptive strategies in Ukraine, Syria and Western elections, and it is unlikely that Putin will stop there. “While we are trying to understand his policies, we should always remember it is very beneficial for him to act in a disruptive way on the international arena.”

Vitali Shkliarov said that Russia’s course in turning away from an “open-minded” foreign policy during 18 years of Vladimir Putin’s rule has partly been a consequence of a “sense of betrayal by the West,” such as the expansion of NATO. The “betrayal” rationale is how Putin explains the shift in foreign policy to himself and to the people of Russia, “selling” a story of “us against them” that helps Putin “unite people” backing him. The escalation of tensions and Western sanctions have only helped Putin entrench this message, supported by a perfected propaganda machine. “Over the years that has become his [Putin’s] mantra,” said Shkliarov, adding that the West’s actions to push Russia into isolation are only contributing to this.

“When we talk about Putin’s foreign policy,” said Vladimir Kara-Murza, “it is very important to keep in mind that his foreign policy is a reflection and a function of a continuation of his domestic politics.” He refuted the concept of an “early, middle and late Putin,” saying that the authoritarian trends of his rule, which have now “reached extremes,” have been present since the beginning. Western leaders have largely preferred to ignore domestic repressions within Russia, in an effort to preserve the “modus operandi” of international cooperation, thus pursuing their own interests over values, yet this strategy has turned out to be shortsighted. “Mr. Putin has shown it is just a matter of time before domestic repression translates into external aggression,” said Kara-Murza. He said Russian foreign policy has always been determined by the domestic situation. The world will see a completely different foreign policy take effect with a democratic change in Russia, as was the case prior to Vladimir Putin’s rise to power, he said.

Andrei Kozyrev said it is essential to “distinguish between Russian national interest and the regime’s interests,” and the current foreign policy is completely contrary to the Russian national interest. Portraying the West as an enemy has helped justify the seizure of power by the security services, “rather than a democratically elected government.” Russian involvement in the Ukrainian and Syrian conflicts is contrary to the national interest, said Kozyrev, and Russia needs cooperation and partnerships with “most developed countries in the world” in order to become a modern country. In fact, said Kozyrev, he does not see real conflicting interests in U.S. and Russian foreign policy that make cooperation impossible. “Russia and the U.S. cooperate in outer space, so it only takes one step to descend from outer space to the earth, and it depends on domestic development in Russia,” said Kozyrev.

Engaging with Russia

Vitali Shkliarov said that Russians and Americans have to try to find a way for dialogue. The current U.S. president, he said, “is building a bridge with the most aggressive dictator” of North Korea, so why wouldn’t engagement between the U.S. and Russia work? Communication is very important in building dialogue and there is scope for cooperation in the fight against terrorism and in other global challenges, said Shkliarov. “I believe where there is a will, there is a way,” said Shkliarov, but noted that at the moment it feels like “there is no will on either side.”

Natalia Arno said a policy of deterrence, containment and engagement should be applied towards Russia. Russian civil society, independent media and pro-democratic forces could be engaged in dialogue, said Arno, adding that behind the headlines there is actually a growing grassroots movement in Russia. Arno said there are more and more young people demanding change in Russia, and more people are participating in local politics – the only level of government left where democratically minded people can act. An example of this, she said, is last year’s successful municipal elections in Moscow, where the democratic opposition candidates became the second largest political power in the capital after the ruling party. These “new institutionalized sprouts of pro-democracy forces” are examples of who needs to be engaged in the dialogue, said Arno.

Vladimir Kara-Murza said contact with civil society is important, but there is also the question of engagement with the regime, and the quality of engagement. Even during the most difficult periods of the Cold War, said Kara-Murza, Western leaders were able to successfully negotiate arms control agreements and often secure the release of political prisoners in the Soviet Union. He said that with more than 150 political prisoners in Russia today, and the hunger strike of Oleg Sentsov – the jailed Ukrainian filmmaker who demands the release of all Ukrainian political prisoners in Russia – there are not a lot of Western leaders who prominently raise this issue. “It is not about engaging or not engaging, it is not a question of talking or not talking with Putin’s regime – it is a question of what you talk about, […] it is about engaging with principles and engaging smartly.”

Andrei Kozyrev said that for any engagement to be successful, diplomatic efforts and thoughtful, prepared agreements are necessary, rather than just “engagement which ends with hugs and kisses.” Authoritarian leaders, said Kozyrev, dislike democracy, but “they also like to be seen as accepted by Western leaders because it plays to their domestic image of tough but respected,” said Kozyrev. Yet engagement is important and possible, said Kozyrev – “it is important to see where you can cooperate and where not.”

By Valeria Jegisman

Last Address: a civic initiative to commemorate victims of Soviet repressions

Jun 10 2018

On Monday, June 4, the Kennan’s Institute, a Washington-based think-tank, organized a panel to introduce “The Last Address” project – a civic initiative to commemorate the victims of repressions in the Soviet Union which originated in Russia and is gradually spreading to other countries. The panelists talked about the origins, success, and challenges of the initiative.

On Monday, June 4, the Kennan’s Institute, a Washington-based think-tank, organized a panel to introduce “The Last Address” project – a civic initiative to commemorate the victims of repressions in the Soviet Union which originated in Russia and is gradually spreading to other countries. The panelists talked about the origins, success, and challenges of the initiative.

The panel included:

Sergey Parkhomenko, Journalist, “Echo of Moscow” Radio; a George F. Kennan Fellow at Kennan Institute and a founder of the “Last Address” initiative;Dmytro Belobrov, Head of “The Last Address” in Ukraine and a journalist at the independent Ukrainian channel Hromadske.ua;Grigory Frolov, Vice President of Projects and Development, Free Russia Foundation, Ukraine.

Moderated by Izabella Tabarovsky, the Senior Program Associate at Kennan Institute.

“One name – one life – one plaque”

Sergey Parkhomenko, a founder of “The Last Address” initiative, which started in 2014, said he was inspired by a memorial project of German artist Günter Demnig “Stumbling Stones”. “Stumbling Stones” – Stolperstein – started in 1993 and is still ongoing, and has been widely spread across Europe and commemorates the victims of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust from 1933-45 by installing commemorative brass pavement stones at their last place of residence or work.

“In Russia, we had another catastrophe,” said Parkomenko. “We had an if I can say, “Russian Holocaust.” It was four decades of Soviet political repressions” with all the republics and nations in the Soviet Union not being able to escape this “machine of extermination,” said Parkhomenko.

“The Last Address” project installs commemorative plaques the size of postcards to individual victims of Soviet repression at their last places of living: with their name, profession, date of birth, arrest, death, and rehabilitation. The idea behind the project is a “personalized” memorial – “one name – one life-one plaque” – where installation of plaques is proposed by a particular person who can be a relative of the repressed or just interested in the installation of the plaque.

The project is based on the vast historical database compiled by the Russian human rights group “Memorial,” which has the data of more than four million repressed across the former Soviet Union. To date, Parkhomenko said, more than 2,500 applications across Russia have been submitted through the project’s website and almost 800 plaques have been installed in more than 40 Russian cities. The project is also expanding into other countries – sister projects already exist in Ukraine and the Czech Republic and will soon start in Estonia, Georgia, Moldova and Romania.

“Value-based” and grassroots initiative

Dmytro Belobrov who coordinates “The Last Address” sister project in Ukraine said that for him, the project is involved in the restoration of principles that Ukrainian society might have forgotten. “This project is a part of a puzzle that would help us to restore our principles and to restore our modern understanding of us, the understanding that there is truth and we should fight for it,” said Belobrov.

Grigory Frolov, who heads Free Russia House in Kiev and supports the Ukrainian project said that an important part of it is its educational role in discussions on such difficult issues as a shared Soviet history, communication, repressions and the need to commemorate the victims of communism. The latter may not seem a priority in the country which has to commemorate those perished in an ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, said Frolov, however for society to move forward, there is a need to understand the past which still affects many societies in post-Soviet countries.

Also, the de-communization process should not be a “political” but a “value-based thing which should go through the society,” said Frolov, adding that the project represents a grassroots “value-based” initiative based on the lives and stories of particular people. With this approach, it is easier to discuss de-communization with people who oppose it – particularly those in the eastern and southern parts of the country.

“We have so far put 18 plaques, mostly in Kiev and Odessa,” said Frolov, with Lviv, Dnipro, and Kharkiv to follow soon.

No big challenges

The public has been generally supportive of the initiative, said the panelists. “We had very few cases of vandalism,” said Parkhomenko, “from around 800 plaques we had 5-6 cases of situations of conflict”. One of the reasons for this lack of conflict is that the permission for installing the plaque is needed only from the residents of the buildings, and there is always an open discussion with them prior to the installation, said Parkhomenko.

Belobrov said there was one case of vandalism in Odessa. He noted it is more difficult to talk to people about the initiative in Odessa where some “communism clichés” arise. Yet according to the panelists, the personalized approach along with the grassroots level of the project helps to overcome these difficulties.

For many people, said Frolov, this project is a personal thing and “it goes from family to family,” being built on personal stories.

“It is very difficult to be against or criticize the project,” said Parkhomenko adding that in Russia, where the project hasn’t faced either support nor resistance from the authorities, even the state-media had a quite positive coverage of the project.

In Ukraine, said Frolov, there hasn’t been any negative stance from the authorities either. After the KGB archives were made public in Ukraine in 2015, it is very easy for the project’s volunteers to access archives with the data of the repressed.

However, in some parts of Russia such as Chechnya or Dagestan there may be some challenges, said Parknomenko, since the case applications based on political repressions should be separated from the inter-ethnic repressions, as the project doesn’t deal with the latter.

The panelists noted that “the Last Address” project is not just an “anti-Stalinist” but an “anti-totalitarian” due to repressions dating back since 1917. There has also been a plaque installed in Ukraine for Valeriy Marchenko, a Ukranian dissident who died in 1984.

“All totalitarian regimes with totalitarian repressions are the same,” said Parkhomenko which is the idea behind the project and its international sister initiatives.